Good luck Peter,
But the analogy to devastating bushfires is entirely inappropriate. They are a consequence of post-European fire suppression. Traditional burning has fire trickling across the landscape like water. Without it we have upside-down country -thin on top and thick underneath. Sick trees with lazy roots. And 3D continuous fuels that go off like a bomb when ignited in severe weather. You should talk to Victor Steffensen. This is all backed by fairdinkum science NOT CONSENSUS. See Firestick Ecology Vic Jurskis.

Posted by Little, Monday, 12 February 2018 8:50:12 AM

What is happening to this man is a disgrace – something that would have happened in Soviet Russia. A gag order! Emails raided! Can't even speak to his wife! Perhaps we have all been dreaming, and we are actually living in the old USSR?

“... around 50 percent of recently published science is wrong, because the results can't be replicated by others”. Where are all the chunterers who rabbit on about 'peer reviewed science'. They are nowhere to be heard. It seems that Australian 'science' is a complete joke: 80% rubbish, yet their confidence tricksters are still fooling our complete joke of a government.

Ridd has had his human rights trampled into the dirt, and not a word from our gutless government. The same gutless government that encourages tourism as a big money-spinner, but ignores Ridd and the very people who operate the tourist industry and say the same thing as Ridd: the damage to the reef is greatly exaggerated – or a complete lie.

Posted by ttbn, Monday, 12 February 2018 8:51:24 AM

The disjunct between the normal scientific process and mainstream media presentation, when contained within the paradigm of advocacy, represents a threat to the integrity of science. Science seeks the truth in knowledge whilst mainstream media advocacy seeks to propagandise this knowledge. This impact is reinforced if a scientist-modeller is directly quoted as an expert, further blurring the line between science and advocacy. This has societal repercussions as science has become so model-dependent that the citizenry is not always able to differentiate between what is scientific knowledge and what is advocacy. The implications of this approach, as regards policy development, are likely to have a profound affect on society. Model-dependent science is built upon a sandcastle virtue of consensus that its adherents are forever fearful of being swept away, based, as it is on putative sources that we are told we should trust and never question. Not to trust the consensus so earns the epithet of denier (or worse), a pejorative term applied to those kine of sceptical mien or those who have the ability to think critically or freely. By trusting in putative sources, the consensus is actually what? It is never actually explicitly stated as to what the consensus actually is; all that is said is that we have to do something, and not ask questions. More power to you Peter, JCU and the other publicly funded institutions you mentioned should hang their heads in shame.

Posted by Raredog, Monday, 12 February 2018 9:02:33 AM

The peer review system is actually worse than described because most editors actively suppress scientific debate. Where a controversial article receives one favourable and one unfavourable review they go with 'çonsensus'.

Posted by Little, Monday, 12 February 2018 9:04:16 AM

We are all well aware of your current beef with James Cook university. And your widely differing "scientific" opinions.

One can only say, when it comes to honesty in reporting the facts. Cameras rarely lie.

All you claim including being unable to talk to your wife, might be true, but as Robbie Burns might have commented, I ha'e ma doots.

On another note, you remind me of the son of a proud mum attending a passing out parade and chest swelling with pride said, look there's Tommy and he's the only one in step! Alan B.

Posted by Alan B., Monday, 12 February 2018 9:22:46 AM

As Prof Ridd has pointed out, the reef has been declared almost dead so often by "experts" that questions have to be asked about these experts and the quality of their research. That much of the research in this area can't be replicated does not surprise me at all. The real surprise is that when Prof Ridd said what was blindingly obvious to anyone who's looked at the many public pronouncements about the reef, he got sandbagged for his trouble.